GEETA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following prayer made by the petitioner in this writ application: - -

(2.) MR . Ashish Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation is factually incorrect and legally impermissible. According to him the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner could not have been rejected either on the ground that no further compassionate appointment has been made in the Airport Authority of India Ltd., since 2008 or on account of payment of terminal benefits to the family members of the deceased. In this regard, strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Giri on a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 260 of 2008 (Canara Bank & Anr v. M. Mahesh Kumar) and its analogous cases. Mr. Giri, has also laid stress on the aspect that whatever observations had been made by this Court in the earlier round of writ petition filed by the petitioner has not at all be taken into consideration by the Secretary to the Department while passing the impugned order.

(3.) IN order to decide, the question as with regard to admissibility of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, few facts have to be taken into account. The husband of the petitioner was working as Safaiwala at Jai Prakash Narayan International Airport, Patna. He was said to be missing since, 05.02.1997. As a matter of fact a Title Suit No. 22 of 2004, was filed for a declaration that the aforesaid Sushil Kumar, on account of his continued missing for a period of seven years and being traceless, has to be treated to be dead. The said civil suit was decreed on 31.08.2005, wherein, Civil Court had declared that Sushil Kumar on account of his being traceless was now no more alive and would be presumed to have died.